Times of Trenton Letters to the Editor - Aug. 18

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty ImagesPresident Barack Obama in an August 2011 photo.

Obama administration let Wall Street crooks off the hook

A lot has been made of Vice President Joe Biden’s “gaffe” in stating that a Romney-Ryan administration is “gonna put y’all back in chains.” I don’t much care that he may have been pandering to African-Americans in the audience. And I want to present facts about who has actually prosecuted financial criminals.

A report by the conservative Government Accountability Institute has pointed out that the Clinton administration sent 1,000 white-collar criminals to jail. The George W. Bush administration found a new home in federal custody for 1,300 such crooks. The Obama Justice Department has not seen fit to prosecute even one single fraudster.

We are urging our members, family members and others who will be affected by the closure at these two developmental facilities to reach out to the various legislative representatives in their areas and speak out against the developmental center closures.

-- Timothy J. Rudolph,
Milltown
The writer is president of IFPTE Local 195.

First, much of the gun crime is intimately related to the illegal drug trade. That much is clear from our experiences here in Trenton. When law enforcement can’t stop illegal drugs coming into the city (despite national laws), how could Mr. Ziegler possibly believe it could stop the flow of illegal weapons to protect that trade?

Mr. Ziegler attributes the arguments opposing gun control to cynicism and fear. Among those, he includes defense against tyranny. Clearly, he has failed to study history or human nature. Governments always try to suppress and enslave the governed. This truth is repeated endlessly throughout recorded human history. Freedom is paid for with blood — just look at the Middle East today or our own history.

Perhaps he is too young to have noted the steady erosion of our own freedoms over the past 50 years. I believe that erosion would be even worse without an armed citizenry. I only hope we can change this trend before we have to pay with more blood. Unfortunately, if we become the “sensible” people (who would “want to tightly control automatic weapons”) Mr. Ziegler suggests, that will be unlikely.

Freedom requires constant vigilance: a point lost on far too many citizens today, who prefer to believe more government and more laws can relieve us of responsibility for ourselves.

-- Walter Andrew,
Bordentown Township

It stands to reason to restrict gun use

We pay a fine when we drive a car or a motorcycle with no license; fishing in many states requires a license, as does selling alcohol.

In many jurisdictions and the internet, guns are obtainable without a fee, a license or a test of competency or sanity.

The ease by which our society allows gun ownership encourages unstable people to think a gun solves a problem. While, in the U.S., there are more than 49,000 firearms retailers, more than 7,000 pawnbrokers and more than 5,000 gun shows selling guns, the states reduced support for mental health centers by $1.6 billion from 2009 to 2011.

We do successfully restrict the availability of some deadly agents, such as lethal gases, explosives and machine guns. If we sincerely wanted to stop unreasonable killings, we would do so. We would limit the use of guns to people of sound mind who are registered hunters, target shooters and, of course, the police and the military, who are competent in the use of guns. [When the Second Amendment was written, the common weapon was the musket — a weapon incapable of mass killing.] With these limitations, a person who decided to kill would have to use, for example, a baseball bat — more labor-intensive, but less deadly.

The profits of gun makers and sellers and the grim zealotry of the National Rifle Association and craven politicians who pander to the NRA stand united against any amelioration of the daily carnage wrought by guns.

An empty gun can be refilled, but not an empty chair.

-- Beston Jack Abrams,
Ewing

Let’s restrain passenger pets

Recently, I introduced legislation A3221 that would require pets to be restrained when traveling in automobiles, a measure I crafted to help protect motorists and pets alike.

Unrestrained pets in the car can be more of a distraction than a cell phone, especially if the animal is hopping from seat to seat, trying to sit on your lap, or worse, if it jumps down by your feet. It’s in the best interest of motorists and the pets themselves to have them restrained.

There may be different ways we can go about achieving this goal, but at the very least, I think this is a discussion worth having.

I commend the young student who first proposed this idea to me for being concerned and engaged. I have a small dog and I know how distracting pets can be when driving. I’ve also spoken with my veterinarian, who has treated pets that were injured from being thrown around in a car that was forced to stop short. Pets can be hurt or killed just as easily as a person and I think that’s something we all want to avoid.

-- L. Grace Spencer,
Newark
The writer, a Democrat, represents the 29th District in the New Jersey General Assembly, where she is chairwoman of the environment and solid waste committee.

Measure allows colleges to build willy-nilly

Under current law, public colleges and universities are exempt from local zoning and planning rules.

If Rutgers University or TCNJ wants to build a football stadium (or office building, dormitory, restaurant or dining hall), it need not seek approval from any planning or zoning board. As public institutions, they are, however, required to give public notice of their plans and to hold public hearings. A town attorney or any group of citizens could then sue to stop the project in the Appellate Division of the Superior Court. A judge would then hear evidence regarding the appropriateness of the project and would rule on whether it could to go forward. In effect, the Superior Court would act as a local planning board.

While Superior Court might not be the ideal venue for community planning, bill S1534, which recently passed the state Senate and would allow private colleges and universities to ignore local zoning ordinances and planning boards, would create circumstances that are far more pernicious. It would allow a Princeton or Seton Hall University to build whatever it wants anywhere in the state. Neither public notice nor public hearings would be required, as is now the case with public colleges and universities. And because no appeals would be possible, no private university property would ever be off-limits for any use whatsoever.

There is little doubt that a law exempting a small group of private property owners from the laws of the communities in which they reside violates the state constitution. The Assembly should reject it.

-- Ken Fields,
Princeton
The writer is secretary/treasurer for the Eleanor J. Lewis Fund for Public Interest Research.